[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6594841,"mediaKeyId","3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982","parentId",3050665,"title","Council adopts 2025–26 CDBG plan; funding earmarked for Country Village Road rehab and housing aid","audioSeconds",510,"startMs",5908000,"endMs",6418000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982&start=5908&end=6418","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982/thumbnail_5908000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6594841/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Council-adopts-202526-CDBG-plan-funding-earmarked-for-Country-Village-Road-rehab-and-housing-aid","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594841-b963440719792c655c4a9fa4b3fac39e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770948234&Signature=k6Kb0ZWjq~mIPrAtfOaWjl615q0QZ8dVkX99LyPYXwDAWUQNaTht3KAN0wuKgI7rCos29Un5~~UCELyQzGdTRl-ZuidZkSXa5SB0mJtFzEvnXklFhGqEheOTb2urUvQbDF676cvXwmdg8GQ7ewW5FmMwfLcSdU-8dtPEtvdkM1kS1wVS5YE0XtC~mkQaikj4dxC8oG7jLjUBA49CM2gLrUkDdxF5GYM63r5EVRchfdou2OtOGS1RC1fUOF~OwvPvvKKgezHfFcti8sgs4OhNHbxR2I0X9UF8AhKh7m16Mn~UKTXivzbmm1aX97age43QA59hcsFgNVudRA7BT7xSbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Jurupa Valley City","date","2025-04-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Jurupa Valley City Council held a public hearing on April 17 and adopted the city’s 2025–26 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan, a federal funding plan required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Planning staff summarized the city’s consolidated five‑year plan and the annual allocations. The city’s anticipated 2025–26 CDBG allocation is roughly $1 million (final federal allocation pending), and staff presented recommended uses aligned with the adopted consolidated plan: a pavement rehabilitation project for Country Village Road (segment from Visata Way to Granite Hill Drive north of the 60 Freeway), continued public‑service grants (Path of Life and Family Services senior nutrition program previously approved), a housing‑rehabilitation program increase, fair‑housing services and program administration.

Staff proposed raising the home‑rehabilitation per‑house cap from $10,000 to $15,000 to address higher construction costs; the proposed increase would fund repairs for an estimated eight homes in 2025–26. Administration and consultant work—including a contract for fair‑housing services—was budgeted at about $150,000; program services funded this year included public‑service grants approved at the prior meeting (Path of Life $125,000; senior nutrition $25,000). Contractors and homeowner work are reimbursed on completion; staff noted they will adjust budget lines if HUD’s final allocation differs from estimates.

The public hearing received no public speakers on the item, and Councilmember Barajas moved to adopt Resolution No. 2025‑534 adopting the annual action plan; Councilmember Carmona seconded and the council approved the resolution 5–0.

Ending: Staff will finalize the plan and adjust accounts if HUD’s official allocation differs from current estimates; the adopted plan funds pavement rehabilitation, expanded housing‑rehabilitation support and public‑service grants for the coming year.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Jurupa Valley City - City Council - Apr 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council approved the city’s Community Development Block Grant annual action plan estimating about $1 million in federal funds for 2025–26, earmarking pavement rehabilitation on Country Village Road, increased housing‑rehab grants (from $10,000 to $15,000 per home), public‑service grants and administrative funds.","taxTitle","Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California","taxId",3854,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6594846,"City finalizes expanded street improvements for Pyrite/Mission project after cooperative agreement work",327,4877000,5204000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982&start=4877&end=5204","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982/thumbnail_4877000.jpg","/articles/6594846/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/City-finalizes-expanded-street-improvements-for-PyriteMission-project-after-cooperative-agreement-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594846-826cf7ffb23c3a8e3a10a15a7412c521/orig.mp4?Expires=1770948234&Signature=YQr40wMtS83Hx~yM-tHJAA6nq0qW0Pc~TGEIhviviDHFpg2pdBZQr3VqzRpDkviKP50KZa~6cqZkYbxKmcrHw-HcU7UDg3mzU5AM4N2fQD1g6yYgTY7IPsoqvh~HzOGFxwFvJ~Tp4MDazvUu7P0hoLSc95raYDHbcQuNWmmU~PIvW6gT0ggBu4oycsZXDKHwAxIOZHTKX2KEkJ4Qi9id2YWLv4ean9krbeSMBRCv~OfcZKSS~o7U~6qjpotUjszvg48tpMoX9wmyustrXAkEPy5WNkIBCCO2tOTUo6y0YowEY5G2UhBinptBIUW6gB8GsYAM2SXxiBvAZkwVAEAnbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff explained the scope and costs behind a contract amendment for the Pyrite/Mission frontage improvements during the April 17 meeting, saying additional work requested during construction expanded the original bid and used contingency funds.

Public Works staff said the city had entered a cooperative agreement with a shopping‑center developer to coordinate off‑site frontage work intended to be complete when the new commercial center opened. The original developer plans covered frontage immediately adjacent to the site, but construction revealed missing sidewalk links, heavy pedestrian use to nearby religious and commercial sites, and a previously unplanned median that needed reconstruction. During construction the city added a median landscape scope, sidewalk and curb-and-gutter work on the opposite (south) side of Mission Boulevard, and upgrades to two traffic signals to meet railroad/grade‑separation coordination requirements. Staff said those additions became necessary for safety and pedestrian connectivity and were priced on negotiated unit rates and change orders.

Staff thanked the contractor—American Asphalt—and the project team for completing the work under schedule pressure; they said the original contract included a contingency that was largely consumed by the extra work and that the current amendment closes the project with no additional future contract costs expected. Councilmembers asked staff to verify final striping and turn‑lane markings at the new driveway accesses to improve lane assignment clarity; staff agreed to follow up on striping and site refinements.

The contract amendment and related items were part of the meeting’s consent calendar, which passed on a five‑zero vote. Councilmember Barajas moved approval and Councilmember Silva seconded; the vote carried 5–0.

Ending: Staff said this amendment should finalize the contract and that additional minor operational striping or traffic adjustments would be handled outside this contract’s scope.","The city explained a nearly $750,000 increase to a Pyrite/Mission streetscape contract that added sidewalks, median landscaping and signal work the developer had not originally included on the south side of Mission; council approved the consent calendar that included the amendment.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6594850,"Residents and pastors appeal to city to allow long-time bus operator to keep yard for pupil transport",902,5524000,6426000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982&start=5524&end=6426","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982/thumbnail_5524000.jpg","/articles/6594850/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Residents-and-pastors-appeal-to-city-to-allow-long-time-bus-operator-to-keep-yard-for-pupil-transport","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594850-0f167d521677c91435da533e46e18e46/orig.mp4?Expires=1770948234&Signature=F2uhb-ikYX-SGwawTY-Zpi0hjAa1uBTqH-ZkXD2mzgXPkaq7uQ17bPJ0qBJ0LCTxsfBMZGucqmAh6auy7UjrbGb5XuSsNkUQe0fPppR0RqVtN6vmeX~~qjEa6qedSXfczLUhff6hXMD6LkX8SVHHtAG~jW9ATIPLC2q9Unv2IghaeWw4cxjIdrsPlKpf7pqeNY2MSYEXdBVDoAC6tjTgAIsOvfwbQ7yctiXuZVokzvhKvRAAUVDGSElCMgtkpTXzjGFU-ikqVCmOsel8Ne~h0qBlXGv3IwQ1IkRXXvCEV5UHFNUB9TzQn5au9xLmfLJnn-4W7jhy8x9auJcaQ6mhIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple residents and community leaders addressed the Jurupa Valley City Council on April 17 seeking relief for a local pupil-transport business facing zoning and code-enforcement pressure to remove its buses from a private lot.

Reggie Stark, speaking on behalf of Stark Transportation, asked the council to grant a conditional use permit allowing his wife, Leslie Stark, to continue parking several passenger buses at 2756 Avalon Street, a property the speakers said has been used for pupil transport for more than a decade. Lesley Stark and other witnesses described a history of school-runs, field trips and community-service trips that serve Harupa Valley and neighboring districts, and they told the council the yard is well maintained and that the business provides important service for families and organizations.

Several speakers gave personal testimony: a former colleague and bus driver, Cindy Payne, said she has known Leslie Stark since the 1990s and attested to her safety record and service; community members said nearby properties used for vehicle storage are in worse condition than Stark’s yard; Reverend Donald Roberson of the Baptist Ministers Conference said local churches rely on the company for group transportation and asked the council to show “mercy.” Leslie Stark and a second speaker, who identified herself as Keenan Braden, said the property was used for parking with city knowledge and that prior inspections and cooperative arrangements had taken place. Speakers said one 2020 citation concerned dust and that the site had been used constructively (for example allowing public‑works equipment to park temporarily during neighborhood road work) to reduce dust during construction.

Members of the public said they had been quoted inconsistent or changing enforcement expectations and that neighbors with poor property conditions had not been held to the same standard. Some speakers also raised concerns about disparities and asked for equitable treatment of this Black‑owned business.

Council members did not take action at the meeting. Mayor Buxton said the council could not discuss or determine decisions in the public‑comment period but asked staff to investigate and report back: “I will just ask staff to look at it, evaluate it, send council an update, that we can see where things are with it,” he said. Staff indicated they would review the property’s permit and enforcement history and return to the council with findings. No formal hearing or vote on a conditional use permit took place that evening.

Ending: The council did not take action and directed staff to evaluate the property’s permit history and code‑enforcement record and to brief the council on possible next steps.","Speakers including owner Leslie Stark and community pastors asked the council to allow a conditional use permit for a small bus yard used to transport students; speakers said the property is well maintained and serves local schools and community groups. Council asked staff to evaluate the complaints and return with an update.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6594854,"Northwest Mosquito & Vector Control briefs Jurupa Valley council on West Nile and dengue work",571,4237000,4808000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982&start=4237&end=4808","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982/thumbnail_4237000.jpg","/articles/6594854/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Northwest-Mosquito-Vector-Control-briefs-Jurupa-Valley-council-on-West-Nile-and-dengue-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594854-9649e384a3522cba46a5419650066cfc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770948234&Signature=MRTDYKQEO4O6r7uPAWNr~j5UpooTMdSB6LWvMDzmfMKmh-G8s3WCb~ZBeMBHocOt4aA0YO988kb7Vvqd9FmIrCbZ3~WbzoVQVOzgrFAvYv2vp~OWw188FXp7ZAUmckwjU937DKTuTF-ur5ac8iOvLKjxdGH-5p16O6g~0KR2ex5pPztWMrNQpBGst1M9GnI2Z1BSqhfNGDVPN9I0W4XSifoAyHfOj9NX2RSN~mL0y06FQt6s9Kqe3-FJtDxX-k-9Hlxxj0pk2z2H~OjgMRgzycre6ADDenGV1hy3ArtX-Z7qbtrTU~bl-OAaNNawIVAwzSusRrQoG9dIdMKjBIW5Hg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mark Breidenbach, district manager for Northwest Mosquito & Vector Control, gave an informational presentation to the Jurupa Valley City Council on April 17 about the agency’s surveillance and control work for mosquitoes and other vectors that affect public health.

Breidenbach said the district, headquartered in Corona, serves seven cities in northwest Riverside County, including Jurupa Valley, on an annual budget of about $5 million. The district uses integrated vector management: staff monitor larvae and adult mosquitoes with traps, use targeted biological larvicides and raise mosquitofish (guppies) for distribution to residents, and test mosquito samples for vector-borne pathogens including West Nile virus. He said aedes aegypti—the species that spreads dengue—was introduced to the Inland Empire around 2015 and is a particularly persistent urban biter that breeds in small containers near homes.

The district’s control tactics include larval control with bacterial products that target mosquito larvae (minimizing non-target impacts), targeted adulticide applications only when surveillance thresholds are reached, and geographic information systems (GIS) and laboratory PCR testing to track virus detections and direct responses. Breidenbach said the district performs outreach events and that residents in the district pay a small annual assessment—“about $5 to $20 a year”—for the service, which makes individualized inspections and backyard surveys free to request.

Councilmembers asked whether the district performs proactive surveillance at known breeding basins and drainage areas; Breidenbach said field technicians maintain a database of known problem sites (curb-and-gutter drainage locations, basins) and perform routine checks, and the city and district can share new basin locations for targeted monitoring. He also answered residents’ technical questions about repellents and consumer devices: concentrated DEET formulations provide multiple hours of protection, certain essential oils can repel mosquitoes in concentrated form, and electronic zappers or light traps work differently depending on species and placement.

Breidenbach closed by repeating the district’s public message—“tip, toss and take action”—urging residents to remove standing water, and offered to arrange tours of the district’s Corona facility for councilmembers and staff. No council action was required or taken; the presentation was informational.","The district presented mosquito-control tactics, surveillance and community outreach, urged residents to eliminate standing water and offered free backyard fish for larval control; staff noted the agency’s services are funded through a small benefit assessment paid by homeowners.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6594856,"Jurupa Valley council studies tighter rules, clearer exemptions for private events and noise",1159,49000,1208000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982&start=49&end=1208","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3050665-4fdbcc45d5651fec07803dd4ce072982/thumbnail_49000.jpg","/articles/6594856/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Jurupa-Valley-council-studies-tighter-rules-clearer-exemptions-for-private-events-and-noise","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6594856-59712e4b92379c413df15eb4ee9a8184/orig.mp4?Expires=1770948234&Signature=auIlEwNJ~-rdxkmULD1uo8-s26PRrWsQLUl7x1s~vDDmBa8j~TQSzhQ9A3aEhzmcUzQui~6DXS-T43Dz~LNPo6eALMe8G7tzTleNHjKMc92mxFdssHbS-MpBhzBHlel0JOJV76q8PU5QhQZULLSM6PmagU9mwlRvmviBqKxYXXGyH0ZZNHI9je6CEhaYQBv9FLxFnZae2sHv42Uj-caHxPU9UBnQ9Ilz5C3~9wQOLqeBDtElXKDmXhktUV5jrMyqq5lZai4mbHRs9nljwk0wbf9WpSfPjhl8vurVTA169uye9W7TfvER9b99NLSzC-cQgrC7CLdapHQL9uu5s2u2Tg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff presented a study session to the Jurupa Valley City Council on April 17 reviewing the city’s temporary-event permit rules and the noise ordinance and asking for council direction on possible amendments to streamline permitting and reduce neighborhood impacts.

The presentation, delivered by Community Development staff member Rob Gonzales, summarized current requirements in Jurupa Valley Municipal Code: temporary outdoor events generally require a site development permit processed by the Planning Division, applications are requested 60 days before an event, and the city requires an initial deposit-based application fee of $1,000; additional fees may be charged for events that need more review. The city enforces noise by an audibility rule (sound audible within 100 feet is a violation) and by land‑use decibel limits in Title 11 (residential limits cited as 55 A-weighted decibels daytime, 45 dB nighttime). Fines for noise violations escalate by offense within a year: $200 first, $500 second, $750 third, $1,000 fourth, and the code allows use of decibel meters or an audibility test for enforcement.

Gonzales reviewed four event categories in current code: outdoor entertainment (up to seven consecutive days, up to four times a year), outdoor sales (three to four days, up to four times a year), seasonal sales (up to 40 days, up to three times a year) and special events (typically one day, up to eight times a year). He said exemptions exist for events in established facilities (banquet halls, golf courses), for governmental events and for emergency public-health and safety events. The Community Development Director issues final approvals; appeals may be taken to the Planning Commission and then City Council. Code Enforcement can issue notices of violation (the ordinance cites a $200 base citation absent a city resolution changing the amount), and permits can be denied or revoked for unresolved violations or safety risks.

Councilmembers and residents who spoke at the study session pressed staff for several clarifications and changes. Speakers said the code is unclear about small, private gatherings such as backyard birthday parties with live music: staff and multiple councilmembers noted the rules currently send applicants to the site-development process even for small private events, creating confusion and a perceived burden for families and cultural gatherings. Several councilmembers asked staff to propose tiered permitting (shorter lead times and simplified, lower-cost review for low‑impact community, cultural, or religious events) and to define small/medium/large event thresholds.

Discussion also focused on enforcement and repeat offenders. Councilmembers asked staff to clarify whether permit denials for properties with prior violations are discretionary (“may deny”) or mandatory; staff said the language was left discretionary to allow consideration of new owners or unusual circumstances, but multiple councilmembers directed staff to return with firmer denial language and with options for defined denial periods tied to unresolved violations. Several councilmembers and commenters urged the city to clarify whether organizers, property owners, or both could be cited and to consider remedies that would prevent promoters or repeat organizers from evading enforcement by using family members’ names.

Councilmembers raised concerns about the practical application of decibel thresholds in different neighborhood settings. Members asked staff to consider different noise standards or guidance for lower-density, rural neighborhoods versus compact infill areas, and to propose cutoff hours (for example, stricter limits after 10 p.m.) that would be easier for deputies and code officers to apply. Members also requested staff consider holiday and cultural exceptions for short morning events (for example: Mother’s Day mariachi performances), while maintaining tools to address chronic repeat nuisance events.

Staff proposed possible streamlining options: a tiered review with shorter lead times for low-impact events, flat fees for defined categories, clearer linkage between the temporary-event and noise codes (including private-event exemptions), and increased interagency coordination (Sheriff’s Department, Cal Fire, Code Enforcement, Environmental Health) to ensure responders receive permit information when events are approved. Gonzales and Code Enforcement Officer Ryan Bautista told the council they would return with draft code language reflecting clearer exemptions for small private gatherings, alternative fee/lead-time proposals, options to tighten the “may deny” language, and enforcement clarifications identifying when organizers and/or property owners would be responsible.

The study session produced no formal action or vote. Councilmembers directed staff to return with proposed ordinance edits and implementation options that: (1) distinguish small private gatherings from large commercial events, (2) propose alternative timelines and fees for low‑impact events, (3) clarify enforcement and appeal procedures including responsibility for promoters and property owners, and (4) propose clearer decibel/time thresholds that reflect neighborhood density and are usable by deputies and code staff.

Staff said they would present draft revisions and accompanying enforcement guidance and public-education materials to the council at a future meeting.

Ending: The council’s comments emphasized balancing residents’ right to use their property for celebrations with neighbors’ quality-of-life concerns and directed staff to return with legally clear, enforceable code language and practical enforcement guidance.","City staff outlined existing temporary-event permit rules and the noise ordinance, including 60‑day application windows, deposit-based fees and residential decibel limits; councilmembers urged clearer exemptions for small private gatherings, stronger enforcement tools and faster permitting tiers for low-impact events.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council adopts 2025–26 CDBG plan; funding earmarked for Country Village Road rehab and housing aid

City finalizes expanded street improvements for Pyrite/Mission project after cooperative agreement work

Residents and pastors appeal to city to allow long-time bus operator to keep yard for pupil transport

Northwest Mosquito & Vector Control briefs Jurupa Valley council on West Nile and dengue work

Jurupa Valley council studies tighter rules, clearer exemptions for private events and noise